[27] Note Book, pl. 184, 1574. [28] 38 Edward III. st. l, c. v. [29] III. Reeve’s History English Law, 184. [30] 38 Edward III. st. l, c. 3. [31] III. Reeve’s History English Law, 295. [32] 28 Edward III. 100a; 29 Edward III., 44b; III. Reeve’s History English Law, 295. [33] 47 Edward III., 18; III. Reeve’s History English Law, 295. [34] 38 Edward III., 7a. [35] Coke, Litt. 295. [36] 3 Bl. Comm. 346. [37] Coke, Litt. 295. [38] 3 Bl. Comm. 346. Wager of law was never required, in England, but was allowed, as a privilege to the defendant. Coke, Litt. 295. [39] Mun. Gild. I., 56, 59, 90, 92; II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, p. 635. [40] Mun. Gild. I., 57; II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, _supra_. [41] Mun. Gild, ii, 321; II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, p. 636. [42] Palgrave, English Commonwealth, pp. 117. Lyons Dover, ii, 300, 315. [43] III. Reeve’s History English Law, 567. [44] This was by virtue of a statute of the reign of Henry IV. III. Reeve’s History English Law, c. xviii. [45] III. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 568. [46] 14 Henry VI., 24. [47] 39 Henry VI., 18. [48] 28 Henry VI., 4. [49] _Ante idem._ III. Reeve’s History English Law, p. 569. [50] 38 Henry VI., 14, 22. [51] III. Reeve’s History English Law, 570. Referring to the fact that wager of law was allowed in actions of debt and detinue and the attempt to demonstrate that this was because jury trials were inconsistent with the rights of the parties in these actions, Pollock and Maitland, in their History of English Law, show that the truth is that these actions are older than jury trials. (Vol. II., p. 634.) [52] II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, p. 636. [53] _Ante idem._ [54] _Ante idem._ [55] 3 and 4 William IV., c. 42, sec. 13. [56] Jur. Prov. Saxon. Lib. I., Art. 15, 18, 39. [57] Lea, “Superstition and Force,” (3 ed.) 22, note. [58] This protest against this procedure was in the Fifteenth century. Schilter. Thesaur, II., 291. [59] Pike, History Crime, i, 130; Thayer, “Older Modes of Trial,” II. Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, p. 384. [60] Jacob’s Review of the Statutes (2 ed.), 532. [61] Anastas Biblioth. No. LXII. [62] Gregor. Turon. Hist. Lib. V., cap. XLIX. The custom of acquitting oneself by swearing on different altars, was an old Anglo-Saxon practice, the plaintiff being allowed to substantiate his claim by oaths upon four altars, while the defendant could rebut the charge by oaths upon twelve altars. Dooms of Alfred, Cap. 33; Fleta, Lib. II., cap. lxiii, sec., 12. [63] Spelman, Concil. I., 335. [64] Lea, “Superstition and Force,” (3 ed.) 57. [65] _Ante idem._, p. 61. [66] Ann. Wint. 109; Wykes, 234; II. Pollock and Maitland’s History English Law, 636. [67] Maitland’s Pl. Cr. i, case, 61; Palgrave’s Com. ii, cxix, note. [68] Lyon’s History Dover, ii, 265; II. Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, 385. [69] Year Book, 19 Henry VI., 10, 25.